US Congressional elections - Democrats or Republicans (1 Viewer)

[onebytwo]

^
who do you think is going to win majority in the senate - and why?

i think the democrats look strong....at least by what the polls are showing....the big issues are the economy, the iraq war and terrorism.

 

[onebytwo]

woops, a link, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_House_elections,_2006

 

[onebytwo]

And who pays the most to rig the election

LOL, good point....this whole "rigging" issue has taken a big step forward with the casting of the votes through those computers

 

[ur_inner_child]

Democrats....

 

[Iron]

To clarify: US Congress is made up of two houses. There are 435 seats in the House of Representatives and 100 in the Senate.

The Republican party has controlled both houses for a fair while, but are set to take a spanking due to an unpopular President/war/scandal etc

For the House, Dems need 15 seats for a majority. For the Senate, the Dems need 6 seats.

Reports suggest that the House is in the bag for the Dems (set to pick up >30) and the Senate will be much tighter, with the Dems likely to just fall short of the 6.

 

[ihavenothing]

Democrats, people have had enough, its too late for Bush to apologize

 

[Xayma]

Democrats.

Bush is out (he's served his two terms) and yeh, as you said the big issues are pointing in favour of the Demo's. But sayin that, it depends who and how many people decide to vvote.

And who pays the most to rig the election

This is mid term elections. The next presidential election isn't until 2008.

 

[hazaar]

democrats look too strong. As bush's unpopularity has been rising rapidly, I definately expect quite a large voter backlash.

I can't believe that in the US only a quarter of eligible voters vote!
I know it's to do with 'freedom of speech' as voting is a form of this, and hence people should be given the oppurtunity to 'speak' or reserve their right to 'not speak.'
But what form of democracy is that?! As the largest touter of democracy around the world, America should really take a look at their electoral system. It leaves the door open for sweeping corruption.

I know it's still very early, but on another note, who do you think are the top presidential candidates for the 2008 elections.

Bush is out (thank god) and i expect it will be one of either Hilary Clinton or Barack Obama (watch out for him, he's relatively unknown internationally, but he has an incredible groundswell of support amongst american voters).

However both are dems so their ain't gonna be enough room for da bothe of dem!!! haha (yes i've realised im quite lame....trying to type with a strong american accent).

 

[Aryanbeauty]

Once again John Forbes Kerry shoot himself in the foot by making stupid comments about soldiers in Iraq.

I would like to see a deomocrat controlled house after 12 long years, and see how they drive national security issues. It will be interesting to see how a democrat controlled house of representative, a republican controlled senate kill eachother's resolution lol!

A non Republican President would be very bad for american foreign policy as libtards tends to be weak in foreign policy. I would not mind Hillary Clinton though after seeing her vocal support and Speech at a rally in support of Israel against Terrorist Hizbollah.

 

[Iron]

Meh, botched joke or not, the truth hurts. High school drop outs, the black underclass etc make up a fair proportion of recruits for Iraq. College sanctuary all the way.

Id like to think that this will boomerang though; the republicans make a bothced joke about the war such an issue, where the core issue is the botched war.

And im totally for the option to vote. The U.S. have a very healthy, clearly defined political climate, compared to our sadly stale one. The US get voters who want to vote because they care about the issues. This drives better political results.
In our compulsory system, the people who care the least, matter the most (swing voters), which kills any gutsy political debate.

 

[Captain Gh3y]

That's quite disgusting.

http://www.af.mil/news/story_print.asp?storyID=123027385

— 49.2 percent of officers have advanced or professional degrees; 39.4 percent have master’s degrees, 8.5 percent have professional degrees and 1.3 percent have doctorate degrees.

— 22.8 percent of company grade officers have advanced degrees; 16.5 percent have master’s degrees, 5.9 percent have professional degrees and 0.3 percent have doctorate degrees.

— 85.4 percent of field grade officers have advanced degrees; 70.7 percent have master’s degrees, 12.1 percent have professional degrees and 2.5 percent have doctorate degrees.

— 99.9 percent of the enlisted force have at least a high school education; 73.3 percent have some semester hours toward a college degree; 16.2 percent have an associate’s degree or equivalent semester hours; 4.7 percent have a bachelor’s degree; 0.7 percent have a master’s degree and .01 percent have a professional or doctorate degree.

A high school diploma is in fact required to enlist, so much for drop outs.

Troopos message to Kerry.

As for the elections, we'd better hope the Democrats don't win anything. It's not worth the risk.

 

[lengy]

That picture is so internet worthy. I wonder how long before someone manages to photoshop and edit the message.

 

[gerhard]

heaps of the american troops join the army so they can get college education. i have a friend who got kicked out of home by crazy stepfather, had nowhere to go so joined the military (he was only 17 at the time so he had to wait a little while to serve but could sign the forms or whatever), went to iraq and now has pstd.

Iron, I dont really see how either system is better than the other. Both countries have to focus on the people who arent interested in order to win. In the US whoever can get the most people to turn up to the polling booths wins the election, so all the focus is on getting disinterested people to turn up.

 

[Iron]

Iron, I dont really see how either system is better than the other. Both countries have to focus on the people who arent interested in order to win. In the US whoever can get the most people to turn up to the polling booths wins the election, so all the focus is on getting disinterested people to turn up.

Sure, but when everyone is forced to vote, the issues are much more humdrum and converged. The state's dont just mobilise disinterested people, they mobilise true believers to act on pretty core personal beliefs, whether that be about gay marriage, aggressive foreign policy, abortion or religion. When was the last time we had that kind of talk here? We just have this catastrofuck where both sides fight over the middle grey area, which involves economist working out how many loafs of bread and bottles of milk either party can give/take. 10-20% of undecided voters get to chose which party forms government, because they have to.

But I admit that politicians inevitably get elected, and politicians are generally generic. In terms of hardening the penis of political debate though, I think America has its priorities right.

 

[bshoc]

As it looks now Democrats may take the house narrowly, Republicans will hold the senate for sure. The "new" Democrats sure have fallen far from good and rational days, once they were the party of people like FDR, JFK and Zbigniew Brzezinski, now with people like Hillary Clinton, Howard Dean and Nancy Pelosi they're pretty much the US equivalent of the ALP. If anyone is interested here's one of the JFK era democrats on the current state of the US dems, listen and you may learn something, remember this guy keynoted the 1992 Dem convention:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fENTx9gMB4w
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WVvZ8FW2D2M
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bDQ_urqKT6E

 

[Serius]

democrats look too strong. As bush's unpopularity has been rising rapidly, I definately expect quite a large voter backlash.

I can't believe that in the US only a quarter of eligible voters vote!
I know it's to do with 'freedom of speech' as voting is a form of this, and hence people should be given the oppurtunity to 'speak' or reserve their right to 'not speak.'
But what form of democracy is that?! As the largest touter of democracy around the world, America should really take a look at their electoral system. It leaves the door open for sweeping corruption.

I know it's still very early, but on another note, who do you think are the top presidential candidates for the 2008 elections.

Bush is out (thank god) and i expect it will be one of either Hilary Clinton or Barack Obama (watch out for him, he's relatively unknown internationally, but he has an incredible groundswell of support amongst american voters).

However both are dems so their ain't gonna be enough room for da bothe of dem!!! haha (yes i've realised im quite lame....trying to type with a strong american accent).

Hilary? god i hope not. Isnt she the one who liked banning games because they supposedly cause kids to shoot up their school, and wants to regulate the internet?

One day a strong canditate who is also female will appear, probably not in our lifetimes though.

 

[withoutaface]

As it looks now Democrats may take the house narrowly, Republicans will hold the senate for sure. The "new" Democrats sure have fallen far from good and rational days, once they were the party of people like FDR, JFK and Zbigniew Brzezinski, now with people like Hillary Clinton, Howard Dean and Nancy Pelosi they're pretty much the US equivalent of the ALP. If anyone is interested here's one of the JFK era democrats on the current state of the US dems, listen and you may learn something, remember this guy keynoted the 1992 Dem convention:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fENTx9gMB4w
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WVvZ8FW2D2M
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bDQ_urqKT6E

Hahahahahahahhahaha FDR.

 

[ur_inner_child]

Hilary? god i hope not. Isnt she the one who liked banning games because they supposedly cause kids to shoot up their school, and wants to regulate the internet?

One day a strong canditate who is also female will appear, probably not in our lifetimes though.

I recall those ideas, but it was definatley not from Hilary. In fact I was pretty sure that was a republican agenda.

Not sure whether its worth googling though, seems like a large tangent.

 

[withoutaface]

That was probably the GOP, but let's not forget which party had someone who wanted to punish sodomy with the death penalty

 

[Iron]

Lets not forget which Congressman campaigned on anti-gay, child-protection issues while trying to fiddle with the page boys